tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post4849985969161089758..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Divine Simplicity: How Do We Know God is Simple?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-19904680759513653102017-11-11T14:47:44.604-08:002017-11-11T14:47:44.604-08:00This, I think, captures the sort of counter argume...<br />This, I think, captures the sort of counter argument I believe Dawkins had in mind against a particular sort of design argument. So, to what extend does God being complex matter? It matters if we discover that God is complex and try to advocate that the same sort of complexity implies design. To avoid this issue, one must either not advocate such a design argument or deny Dawkins first premise. <br /><br /><b>He's right to counter that argument but he does go beyond that and intimates that this argument cats aspersions on Gods existence, and he clearly seems to be trying to apply physical law to God,</b><br /><br />Simplicity doesn't matter for the reason I outlined. If we accept the first premise that all designers are more complex than their designs, and we accept that God being simple implies God has no complexity, then we must conclude that God did not design anything whatsoever. <br /><br /><b>you just gave me the just when you said "and we accept that God being simple implies God has no complexity." Examine previous discussion you will see I said first that its the type of simplicity/complexity that matters and that God is simple in some ways and complx in others </b><br /><br /><br />Your response is to say the domain of premise 1 is just the physical, but I don't see why that would be. If complexity is measured by perhaps the shortest algorithm that can be used to describe a thing, then whether something is physical or not doesn't seem to matter.<br /><br /><b>Even if we accept premise one the argument there i no cart blanch against God since I just said he can complex in other way, I believe I explained by being not physical mattes, We have no knowledge non physical designer.<br /><br />Two things can be argued here,(1) that since we don't know about non physical things we might say P1 ha no teeth, but I don't like because it seems like special pleading. we could also say (2) I did say God could be complex and since the consequences of being complex apply only to a subject which is subject to physical law they would not be superior to God. This is not special pleading because God created physical law it's always been accepted that he is not subject to his own creation,that;s what makes him God.</b><br /><br /><b>this did not begin as a discussion about the failure of Dawkins,I merely used him as example of someone with the wrong concept of simplicity,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58874797690872304022017-11-11T02:43:11.704-08:002017-11-11T02:43:11.704-08:00Dawkins targets God as being complex to counter a ...Dawkins targets God as being complex to counter a sort of design argument which stipulates that complexity requires design. E.g:<br /><br />1. If something is complex, then it has a designer.<br />2. The universe is complex.<br />3. Therefore, the universe has a designer.<br /><br />Argument 2:<br /><br />1. Every designer is more complex than its design(s).<br />2. If something is complex, then it has a designer.<br />3. If God exists, then God designed earth.<br />4. The earth is complex.<br />5. Therefore, if God exists, then God is more complex than earth.<br />6. Anything more complex than a complex thing is itself complex.<br />7. Therefore, if God exists, then God is complex.<br />8. Therefore, if God exists, then God has a designer.<br /><br />This, I think, captures the sort of counter argument I believe Dawkins had in mind against a particular sort of design argument. So, to what extend does God being complex matter? It matters if we discover that God is complex and try to advocate that the same sort of complexity implies design. To avoid this issue, one must either not advocate such a design argument or deny Dawkins first premise. <br /><br />Simplicity doesn't matter for the reason I outlined. If we accept the first premise that all designers are more complex than their designs, and we accept that God being simple implies God has no complexity, then we must conclude that God did not design anything whatsoever. Your response is to say the domain of premise 1 is just the physical, but I don't see why that would be. If complexity is measured by perhaps the shortest algorithm that can be used to describe a thing, then whether something is physical or not doesn't seem to matter. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-61139092689447297382017-11-11T02:43:09.378-08:002017-11-11T02:43:09.378-08:00m-skeptical said...
No you don't understand lo...m-skeptical said...<br />No you don't understand logic. There are two kinds of reasoning a priori and a postoriori, the latter is empirical and the former is true by definition<br /><br />- See my post The A Priori Gambit. A priori knowledge is what you claim to be true without observation. But the problem is that just because you have an intuition or a feeling, it isn't necessarily true.<br /><br /><b>a proiori is not based upon i tuition it; bawd upon the logic of the terms, I did not make a priori argent I said one phrase I used was true by definition, You are just reacting t buzz words you don;t really understand the issues involved, </b><br /><br />example, all husbands are married men,that is an a prori truth,but there may not be any married men, it;s still true if there are married men they are husbands.<br /><br /><br />- It's true by definition only because the definition reflects reality.<br /><br /><b>no not in the example of that sentence or the use of the term,any time I ay husband it;s a married man it doesn;t matter if there are any about or not,</b><br /><br /> I can define a "shmarkle" to be a married bachelor. My definition would be false because the state of affairs it describes can't exist. <br /><br /><br /><b>no that's wrong, the meaning of the term doesn't change, just because there are no example doesn't mean the meaning changes. If you notice the thing make the tern nonsensical is the meaning of the other two terms,,</b><br /><br />I can define a "vericorn" to be creature that lives on Mars. My definition would be false because it describes a state of affairs that doesn't exist.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> You can define "God" as a being than which no greater can be conceived. Your definition would be false because it describes a state of affairs that can't exist. And no matter how hard you try to make it true, you're just playing games with the definitions of words.<br /><br /><b>no that would be why it has no actual referent but it would not be wrong it would still mean that; what you are saying i saying the term Zeus doe not refer to a god because no gods exist,</b><br /><br /><b>that is not how a prori reposing workings relation to God arguments,<br /> the thing is it's complicated and you don't want it to be true so you jut cant force yourself to listen long enough to get it., a priori reasoning does not work in God arguments by saying God must exist because I define him a existing,</b><br /><br />you don't understand how the ontological argument works, you are going by atheist propaganda but most atheists are now willing to learn<br /><br />- Philosophers don't buy it. Most reasonable theists don't buy it.<br /><br /><b>some do and those who don't are impressed by the work of those who do.<br /><br /><br />a priri reasoning is not about the ontological argument per se I did not make the ontological argument here.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4659839343513449232017-11-11T02:19:46.513-08:002017-11-11T02:19:46.513-08:00Ryan M said...
1. Every designer is more complex t...Ryan M said...<br />1. Every designer is more complex than its design(s).<br />2. If God exists, then God is simple.<br />3. If God exists, then God is a designer.<br />4. If God is a designer, then there exists a design from God.<br />5. If God is simple, and there exists a design from God, then there exists a designer that is less complex than its design.<br />6. God exists. (Assumption)<br />7. Therefore, God is simple. (From 2,6)<br />8. Therefore, God is a designer.(From 3 ,6)<br />9. Therefore, there exists a design from God.(From 4, 8)<br />10. Therefore, there exists a designer which is less complex than its design.(From 5, 7, 9)<br />11. Every designer is more complex than its design(s). (From 1)<br />12. Therefore, it is not the case that God exists. (From 6 - 11)<br /><br /><br /><b>The whole issue is moot because it can't apply to God. for two reasons:<br />(1)two different kinds of simplicity are at issue, the reason Dawkins gives why complexity i less likely-- the problem with God being complex-- only applies to a physical thing that evolves not apply to God, (2) A designer may have to be more complex than the design but a consciousness not linked to physical brain might not be a liability in the way that Dawkins's argument assumes,since his argument applies to physical objects. </b><br /><br />I think Skep has an argument like this in mind, and he's saying that you can only refute it by showing an example of premise 1 being wrong. Stating, say, that premise 1 is false because it would be false "If God exists..." won't help unless you can use "God exists" as a premise. Outside of providing a counter to his argument, you ought to rely on an argument for premise 1 being presented by Skep. <br /><br /><b>I think what I just said beats it. I might just while skep's argumet might be a good argent against some more conventional notion of God, if we think of God as less a designer more like a principle like evolution then its not even applicable</b>L<br /><br />Unless we have a counter to premise 1, saying God would be simple, but providing no proof/evidence for God, does nothing but make it appear that there is a convincing reductio of theism.<br /><br /><b>show me why God being complex is a problem show me why the kind of simplicity doesn't matter,</b><br /><br />12:30 AM DeleteJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-857691232821502152017-11-11T00:30:01.717-08:002017-11-11T00:30:01.717-08:001. Every designer is more complex than its design(...1. Every designer is more complex than its design(s).<br />2. If God exists, then God is simple.<br />3. If God exists, then God is a designer.<br />4. If God is a designer, then there exists a design from God.<br />5. If God is simple, and there exists a design from God, then there exists a designer that is less complex than its design.<br />6. God exists. (Assumption)<br />7. Therefore, God is simple. (From 2,6)<br />8. Therefore, God is a designer.(From 3 ,6)<br />9. Therefore, there exists a design from God.(From 4, 8)<br />10. Therefore, there exists a designer which is less complex than its design.(From 5, 7, 9)<br />11. Every designer is more complex than its design(s). (From 1)<br />12. Therefore, it is not the case that God exists. (From 6 - 11)<br /><br />I think Skep has an argument like this in mind, and he's saying that you can only refute it by showing an example of premise 1 being wrong. Stating, say, that premise 1 is false because it would be false "If God exists..." won't help unless you can use "God exists" as a premise. Outside of providing a counter to his argument, you ought to rely on an argument for premise 1 being presented by Skep. <br /><br />Unless we have a counter to premise 1, saying God would be simple, but providing no proof/evidence for God, does nothing but make it appear that there is a convincing reductio of theism.Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-24239055777499166852017-11-09T15:16:06.993-08:002017-11-09T15:16:06.993-08:00No you don't understand logic. There are two k...<i>No you don't understand logic. There are two kinds of reasoning a priori and a postoriori, the latter is empirical and the former is true by definition</i><br />- See my post <a href="https://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-a-priori-gambit.html" rel="nofollow">The A Priori Gambit</a>. A priori knowledge is what you claim to be true without observation. But the problem is that just because you have an intuition or a feeling, it isn't necessarily true.<br /><br /><i>example, all husbands are married men,that is an a prori truth,but there may not be any married men, it;s still true if there are married men they are husbands.</i><br />- It's true by definition only because the definition reflects reality. I can define a "shmarkle" to be a married bachelor. My definition would be false because the state of affairs it describes can't exist. I can define a "vericorn" to be creature that lives on Mars. My definition would be false because it describes a state of affairs that doesn't exist. You can define "God" as a being than which no greater can be conceived. Your definition would be false because it describes a state of affairs that can't exist. And no matter how hard you try to make it true, you're just playing games with the definitions of words.<br /><br /><i>you don't understand how the ontological argument works, you are going by atheist propaganda but most atheists are now willing to learn</i><br />- Philosophers don't buy it. Most reasonable theists don't buy it.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58262577773566173452017-11-09T11:45:25.426-08:002017-11-09T11:45:25.426-08:00- The problem with ontological arguments is that t...<br />- The problem with ontological arguments is that they define God into existence. It is really a form of circular reasoning. Something isn't true because you define it that way.<br /><br /><b>No. It is not defining God into existence. thinning that proves you don't know much but that's irrelevant because I said nothing about a God argument,a priori reasoning is not just about God.</b><br /><br /><br />Rather, your definition is true only if it describes an actual existing state of affairs.<br /><br /><b>No you don't understand logic. There are two kinds of reasoning a priori and a postoriori, the latter is empirical and the former is true by definition. something does not have to be actual to be true by definition, example, all husbands are married men,that is an a prori truth,but there may not be any married men, it;s still true if there are married men they are husbands. We don't have to check all the busbands we know by defintino theyaremarriedmen,</b><br /><br /><br /> A priori knowledge doesn't exist simply because you define something a certain way.<br /><br /><b>no one thinks it does,</b><br /><br /><br /> It only holds if the thing you define exists. And you can't know that without some kind of observation. Therefore, it's not really a priori knowledge, is it?<br /><br /><b>yes you can. If you know what the terms mean you know the a priri truth of it, If you know Jackie and jills brother than you now by definition they gave the same parents,<br /><br />you don't understand how the ontological argument works, you are going by atheist propaganda but most atheists are now willing to learn,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-52374816298106816982017-11-09T11:09:57.285-08:002017-11-09T11:09:57.285-08:00A truth tahtis true by definition.
- The problem ...<i>A truth tahtis true by definition.</i><br /><br />- The problem with ontological arguments is that they define God into existence. It is really a form of circular reasoning. Something isn't true because you define it that way. Rather, your definition is true only if it describes an actual existing state of affairs. A priori knowledge doesn't exist simply because you define something a certain way. It only holds if the thing you define exists. And you can't know that without some kind of observation. Therefore, it's not really a priori knowledge, is it?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48112897592620275482017-11-09T09:55:58.064-08:002017-11-09T09:55:58.064-08:00im-skeptical said...
I know that you use a priori ...im-skeptical said...<br />I know that you use a priori as an excuse to claim knowledge that you don't have.<br />7:21 AM <br /><br /><b>go back and look at what I said,It involved the inherent logic of the sentence,this is why I say you don;t understand what a priori means,you think there's only one use for it and that's the third rate Christian apoloetics use, </b><br /><br />you said: "I get it perfectly well, Joe. Your imaginary God has whatever qualities and attributes you say he has because that's the way you define him."<br /><br /><b>that's what I'm saying yes that is the way we define him if it ant got that then we ant talking about him,<br /><br />that is i not the say he exists because I define him as exiting, that's<br /> a totally different issue. God existing is different from God being simple. The concept of God can be that of a simple thing regardless of it's existence or lack thereof, that is a priori truth. A truth tahtis true by definition.</b> Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-25815531963231558982017-11-09T07:21:32.277-08:002017-11-09T07:21:32.277-08:00I know that you use a priori as an excuse to claim...I know that you use <i>a priori</i> as an excuse to claim knowledge that you don't have.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-83082804517617286252017-11-08T23:07:35.634-08:002017-11-08T23:07:35.634-08:00m-skeptical said...
we are talking about God a pri...m-skeptical said...<br />we are talking about God a priori so it can't be begging the question that is really foolish reasoning,makes me wonder if you understand begging the question<br /><br />- The good old A Priori Gambit<br /><br /><b>you apparently have no idea what that words means,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4565237040067988992017-11-08T21:37:40.421-08:002017-11-08T21:37:40.421-08:00we are talking about God a priori so it can't ...<i>we are talking about God a priori so it can't be begging the question that is really foolish reasoning,makes me wonder if you understand begging the question</i><br /><br />- The good old <a href="https://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-a-priori-gambit.html" rel="nofollow">A Priori Gambit</a>im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-19909705009300933092017-11-08T13:11:04.551-08:002017-11-08T13:11:04.551-08:00It seem you really don;t understand the basic issu...<i>It seem you really don;t understand the basic issues at play here</i><br /><br />I get it perfectly well, Joe. Your imaginary God has whatever qualities and attributes you say he has because that's the way you define him. And if I speak to another theist who believes different things about HIS imaginary God, he will tell me the same thing. But here's a basic issue the you don't seem to understand. I live in the world of reality, and in my world, arguments have to be sound if you want people to buy them. You don't get to invent your own rules of logic, and you can't just define things into existence, the way you have done. I asked you to present your argument, rather than just asserting that what you believe is true, and you can't make any cogent logical argument for it. You have nothing.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13871360326505801862017-11-08T11:21:50.077-08:002017-11-08T11:21:50.077-08:00Blogger im-skeptical said...
I don't have to b...<br />Blogger im-skeptical said...<br />I don't have to because are no other examples of God than God, the only designer who can be like God is God, I can't show another example,all the designers you are talking about are physical beings,STOP IGNORING THAT YOU HAVE PASSED IT OVER SEVERAL TIME NOW IT CHANGES THE WHOLE ARGUMENT, YOU LOST<br /><br />- No, Joe. All the designers I'm talking about are all the designers we know of. STOP IGNORING THAT YOU HAVE PASSED IT OVER SEVERAL TIME NOW IT CHANGES THE WHOLE ARGUMENT, YOU LOST.<br /><br /><b>It seem you really don;t understand the basic issues at play here,knowing designers is not the issue, I know Frank Loyd Wright he was subject the laws of nature,<br /><br />you are not getting it, the examples you can give other than God are subject to physical law,<br /><br /><br />God is not subject to physical law,top wasting my time</b><br /><br />8:57 AM DeleteJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-36369152174726553752017-11-08T08:57:55.542-08:002017-11-08T08:57:55.542-08:00I don't have to because are no other examples ...<i>I don't have to because are no other examples of God than God, the only designer who can be like God is God, I can't show another example,all the designers you are talking about are physical beings,STOP IGNORING THAT YOU HAVE PASSED IT OVER SEVERAL TIME NOW IT CHANGES THE WHOLE ARGUMENT, YOU LOST</i><br /><br />- No, Joe. All the designers I'm talking about are all the designers we know of. STOP IGNORING THAT YOU HAVE PASSED IT OVER SEVERAL TIME NOW IT CHANGES THE WHOLE ARGUMENT, YOU LOST.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-17745146059264348642017-11-08T07:56:04.810-08:002017-11-08T07:56:04.810-08:00im-skeptical said...
Joe, you seem not to understa...im-skeptical said...<br />Joe, you seem not to understand the basic concrete of argument. I spelled mine out for you. Yes, designers are usually complex. In fact, they are always more complex than the thing they design, and you can't show us one single case of an exception to that. <br /><br /><b>I don't have to because are no other examples of God than God, the only designer who can be like God is God, I can't show another example,all the designers you are talking about are physical beings,STOP IGNORING THAT YOU HAVE PASSED IT OVER SEVERAL TIME NOW IT CHANGES THE WHOLE ARGUMENT, YOU LOST,</b><br /><br /><br /><br />All you can do is BEG THE QUESTION by assuming that 1) God is a designer, and 2) God is simple. <br /><br /><b>we are talking about God a priori so it can't be begging the question that is really foolish reasoning,makes me wonder if you understand begging the question</b><br /><br /><br />But both of those things are nothing more than faith-based assumptions. You haven't given your readers any reason to assume that they're true. <br /><br /><b>I never said I was making an argument for the existence of god,i said the opposite, so that's not a point. I show that if God exit he has to be simple so Dawkins argument doesn't apply,that was not even the point of the post, you totally missed the point. You don'teen understand the reason I gave for /god being simple so calling it faith based is jut pajoirative. </b><br /><br /><br />You quoted from Valicalla, and I pointed out that he didn't even present a logical argument. He merely asserts what you assume to be true. I don't see an argument there. WHERE'S YOUR ARGUMENT?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-41791550865265914642017-11-08T07:28:54.996-08:002017-11-08T07:28:54.996-08:00Joe, you seem not to understand the basic concrete...Joe, you seem not to understand the basic concrete of argument. I spelled mine out for you. Yes, designers are usually complex. In fact, they are always more complex than the thing they design, and you can't show us one single case of an exception to that. All you can do is BEG THE QUESTION by assuming that 1) God is a designer, and 2) God is simple. But both of those things are nothing more than faith-based assumptions. You haven't given your readers any reason to assume that they're true. You quoted from Valicalla, and I pointed out that he didn't even present a logical argument. He merely asserts what you assume to be true. I don't see an argument there. WHERE'S YOUR ARGUMENT?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-26816987683035228242017-11-07T23:31:17.147-08:002017-11-07T23:31:17.147-08:00remember the point of the post was to show how we ...remember the point of the post was to show how we know God is simple not to prove Dawkins is wrong, but Skep has to prove he knows stuff he had to show he's right about something so he latches on that one point and takes the whole discussion into the ground,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-42958614707024179982017-11-07T23:27:52.609-08:002017-11-07T23:27:52.609-08:00That's the God Dawkins is talking about. It is... That's the God Dawkins is talking about. It is only you making presumptions about his nature. I don't hear Dawkins doing that, and you have no justification for reading things into is words and then calling him ignorant.<br /><br /><b>you seem not to understand the basic concrete of argument, and you can't give me examples of what he really doe mean. If he;s not assuming God is subject to natural law why else would he have to be complex?<br /><br />you say because designers usually are,well that's when they are naturalistic ones but not when they are the ground of being,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-15628747832919240452017-11-07T23:22:14.030-08:002017-11-07T23:22:14.030-08:00Yeh, it's pretty clear that "I AM THAT IA...Yeh, it's pretty clear that "I AM THAT IAM" would not be subject to any law....<br /><br /><b>two thumbs up Mike.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-80690064073717557012017-11-07T19:40:21.940-08:002017-11-07T19:40:21.940-08:00Many Catholics and others believe in a divinely si...<i> Many Catholics and others believe in a divinely simple God who also happens to be the "God of Abraham". It is incongruous? Yes. Thet's the nature of theism.<br /><br />God of Abraham still not subject to laws of phyics</i><br /><br />Yeh, it's pretty clear that "I AM THAT IAM" would not be subject to any law....Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8884057635957768012017-11-07T15:18:12.406-08:002017-11-07T15:18:12.406-08:00God of Abraham still not subject to laws of phyics...<i>God of Abraham still not subject to laws of phyics</i><br /><br />- That's the God Dawkins is talking about. It is only you making presumptions about his nature. I don't hear Dawkins doing that, and you have no justification for reading things into is words and then calling him ignorant.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-30582186805857323472017-11-07T14:46:38.511-08:002017-11-07T14:46:38.511-08:00Many Catholics and others believe in a divinely si...Many Catholics and others believe in a divinely simple God who also happens to be the "God of Abraham". It is incongruous? Yes. Thet's the nature of theism.<br /><br /><b>God of Abraham still not subject to laws of phyics</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-28288907270273305612017-11-07T13:58:48.878-08:002017-11-07T13:58:48.878-08:00Erik, I think the argument is that the nature of p...Erik, I think the argument is that the nature of phenomenal concepts is immediately given; knowledge about them is constitutve rather than causal so that conceivability functions differently there than it does with respect to concepts like water. Where the ontology is made up of 'seemings,' then seemings behave differently than they would otherwise.<br /><br />So the explanatory target of neuro- and cognitive sciences and psychology I would say is different from the target of consciousness. This is why the reductions from these disciplines don't seem to go through.<br /><br /><i>Also, are you supposing that complexity in cause only applies to cases where some phenomenon is divisible into parts or components? This is Descartes' divisibility argument all over again, isn't it?</i><br /><br />What else would metaphysical complexity be other than divisibility inot aprts or components? Anyway, with the iron ball, it wasn't just complexity of cause but also of intrinsic properties like size, mass, weight, etc.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-18074073512415772492017-11-07T13:41:36.039-08:002017-11-07T13:41:36.039-08:00... the "designer" aspect just says a de...<i>... the "designer" aspect just says a designer has to have more knowledge than is necessary for designing a thing, because otherwise he or she would fail to be a "designer" - ie capable of different design choices - and be at best something like a "compiler". But Joe's whole issue might best be described as suggesting the anthpomorphic image of "God as designer" is being taken too far in some cases? Almost certainly, if theres a personal creator God, it's still not really the case that he or she "designed" the universe in some way that's directly comparable with a graphic artist or an engineer at work, and, in fact, Gods action is likely hardly comparable to that at all....even if that's the best image for it that we humans can come up with....so Dawkins criticism might apply to the to God's creative action per se - but only to a "metaphor" for it. </i><br /><br />That's the natural theology approach of the 18th century, imagining God as a master craftsmen or engineer. I think most theologians have moved on from that conception to one of God endowing reality with the potential for ordered complexity.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.com